nguyenWeird when Warzone is the cherry picked best case scenario for 7900XTX to begin with LMAO, all other esport games play better on Nvidia anyways. Funny how the latest AMD drivers broke the performance in Warzone, the only esport game that AMD is good at :roll:

BTW I'm a very good esport player myself and I play with low settings all the time, always having the highest end gaming GPU and monitor certainly give me the competitive advantage :rolleyes:. There is something wrong in your thinking that people with high-end GPUs must play only single players game :kookoo:

I guess you have never played esport, capping FPS only work half the time. If you cap the FPS too high and get GPU-bound mid gunfight you will get very noticeable very bad input latency when you need it the most, capping FPS too low and you are losing on latency reduction with higher FPS (e.g. capping at 120FPS give worse input latency vs 200FPS with reflex). Uncapped FPS + Reflex is simply the best solution for esports.

Are you saying that a high-end GPU is a must for eSports games at low graphics? Imo, a 6600 XT or a 3060 would be fine for the job, but if you like spending money so much, then let no one stop you. ;)

AusWolfAre you saying that a high-end GPU is a must for eSports games at low graphics?

Regardless of how funny it sounds it makes sense. Eliminating latency on all sides is a must for you to only have yourself as a limiting factor. So, yeah, despite it being kinda impossible to notice, 6600 XT provides you worse kill ratios in CS2 compared to 7900 XTX. Just because your input lag is a tad lower on the latter.

Unless we're talking 700 VS 600 FPS difference. No eSports connoiseur in the world can tell the difference. This is purely the "skill issue" territory.

Beginner Micro DeviceNot much relevant.

If NV are selling their lowest tier GPUs for $200 it means they are likely to get away with selling their higher tier GPUs for about 500 USD and still have profit. Yes, I'm 99% sure they spend less than 500 bucks on manufacturing, distributing and advertising a single 4090. The companies won't die because of our "greed." They will be fine.

An average consumer, though, is not a giga billion "we can buy anybody" corporation. Paying 1000+ USD for a gaming GPU is wild and it will stay wild.

I don't disagree, but as long as consumers pay those 1000 bucks (with or without complaining about it, it doesn't matter), companies won't face any incentive to decrease prices. This is exactly why I settled with a 7800 XT. Not because I wouldn't want some 7900 XTX / 4080 Super fanciness, not even because I can't afford it (I can, but it would be irresponsible), but because I'm simply unwilling to leave a thousand quid on the table for a mere toy.

Beginner Micro DeviceRegardless of how funny it sounds it makes sense. Eliminating latency on all sides is a must for you to only have yourself as a limiting factor. So, yeah, despite it being kinda impossible to notice, 6600 XT provides you worse kill ratios in CS2 compared to 7900 XTX. Just because your input lag is a tad lower on the latter.

Unless we're talking 700 VS 600 FPS difference. No eSports connoiseur in the world can tell the difference. This is purely the "skill issue" territory.

If you say so. Honestly, I can't even tell the difference above 80-ish FPS, even though I have a 144 Hz monitor. But then, I'm not an eSport gamer, so...

DenverAdmit it, so far RT is pure Alienation. It's not realistic, it doesn't run well on anything, it wastes resources and makes everything more expensive. period.

When I played the first game with RT, BF5, I was shocked how little visual impact it had. Things have gotten better since but not that much better.

Vya DomusWhen I played the first game with RT, BF5, I was shocked how little visual impact it had. Things have gotten better since but not that much better.

I'm currently playing Alan Wake 2. 3440x1440, RT+PT on: 15-20 FPS, RT+PT+FSR Perf: 30-35 FPS, RT and FSR both off: 70-90 FPS. I think the choice is obvious.

nguyenWith TSMC as the only manufacturer making GPUs for Nvidia/AMD/Intel, I doubt prices will get better with next-gen releases.

And I thought there was a lot of whinging going on with this release. What's going to happen with the next gen lmfao.

DenverAdmit it, so far RT is pure Alienation. It's not realistic, it doesn't run well on anything, it wastes resources and makes everything more expensive. period.

This is the reason I decided to completely forego nvidia for my current gpu choice. I love RT, if I can turn it on then I probably will, but I also know it's completely unusable for most games at 1440p native (my target resolution). Sure, some do work and I do turn it on then, but most of them won't, specially as the games become newer, and that's the case for both NVIDIA and AMD GPUs.

Look at the UE5 games that push RT (or well, lumen, but that comes with the same performance impact) and run terribly, GPUs are simply not ready yet, we have a ways to go before we can competently deliver meaningful RT at acceptable framerates on most games. See alan wake 2, a newer game that has an RT implementation that one would consider meaningful. Look at the performance, we are not there yet.

theoutoThis is the reason I decided to completely forego nvidia for my current gpu choice. I love RT, if I can turn it on then I probably will, but I also know it's completely unusable for most games at 1440p native (my target resolution). Sure, some do work and I do turn it on then, but most of them won't, specially as the games become newer, and that's the case for both NVIDIA and AMD GPUs.

Look at the UE5 games that push RT (or well, lumen, but that comes with the same performance impact) and run terribly, GPUs are simply not ready yet, we have a ways to go before we can competently deliver meaningful RT at acceptable framerates on most games. See alan wake 2, a newer game that has an RT implementation that one would consider meaningful. Look at the performance, we are not there yet.

Which is why paying a premium as a beta tester for a not yet ready feature is not such a good idea. I refuse to pay more for less rasterization per dollar in order to turn on a feature that drops my frames to a slide show.

AusWolfI can't even tell the difference above 80-ish FPS, even though I have a 144 Hz monitor.

You play AAA games with advanced visuals, narrative, storyline, interiors, exteriors, you name it. These games, to be enjoyable, just have to be not slow. 60 FPS is enough, 90 FPS is plenty. More is welcome but not very necessary. Your main target is to maintain comfortable framerate whilst increasing image quality to the maximum you can get outta this game on your hardware.

Competitive titles, though, consist of simplified graphics, allies and enemies. Occasionally it's a tad more advanced than that (hostages, flags, bombs etc) but you got it. And one little cheeky lag spike means you aim oil drums instead of your nemesis' head and you get shot instead. And you're not playing such games for fun, your main goal is money. Having a better PC means having more potential $$$. That said, you need to disable EVERYTHING that spends PC resources and can be disabled without Windows going BSoD and dedicate every single TFLOPS to the eSport you're playing. And also getting as low latency system as humanly possible. That's why Windows 11 has low popularity on this scene. It's just slower than 10. Doesn't matter by how much, the fact it's slower is enough.

The reasoning is the same as to why football players and other athletes buy the best gear possible. They just need to eliminate EVERYTHING that can prevent them from showing the ultimate performance.

Vya DomusThings have gotten better since but not that much better.

Getting noticeable improvement and still being at 60ish FPS is accessible at 800+ USD now. Of course it's very expensive but it was only accessible at 1500+ USD last gen and wasn't a thing in 2018. We're getting there slowly but surely. My bet RT will basically be a given in a dozen years from now.

Beginner Micro DeviceYou play AAA games with advanced visuals, narrative, storyline, interiors, exteriors, you name it. These games, to be enjoyable, just have to be not slow. 60 FPS is enough, 90 FPS is plenty. More is welcome but not very necessary. Your main target is to maintain comfortable framerate whilst increasing image quality to the maximum you can get outta this game on your hardware.

Competitive titles, though, consist of simplified graphics, allies and enemies. Occasionally it's a tad more advanced than that (hostages, flags, bombs etc) but you got it. And one little cheeky lag spike means you aim oil drums instead of your nemesis' head and you get shot instead. And you're not playing such games for fun, your main goal is money. Having a better PC means having more potential $$$. That said, you need to disable EVERYTHING that spends PC resources and can be disabled without Windows going BSoD and dedicate every single TFLOPS to the eSport you're playing. And also getting as low latency system as humanly possible. That's why Windows 11 has low popularity on this scene. It's just slower than 10. Doesn't matter by how much, the fact it's slower is enough.

The reasoning is the same as to why football players and other athletes buy the best gear possible. They just need to eliminate EVERYTHING that can prevent them from showing the ultimate performance.

Getting noticeable improvement and still being at 60ish FPS is accessible at 800+ USD now. Of course it's very expensive but it was only accessible at 1500+ USD last gen and wasn't a thing in 2018. We're getting there slowly but surely. My bet RT will basically be a given in a dozen years from now.

So you are saying any high end GPU will give you 60 fps for AAA visuals with or without RT but you want the fastest for gen ras in esports. So unless you can afford a 4090 it sounds like you are talking about a 7900XTX. And even then if you are running esports at 1080p, the 7900XTX has the same performance as the 4090.

You are making the best argument for buying the 7900XTX for all gaming scenarios.

DavenSo you are saying any high end GPU will give you 60 fps for AAA visuals with or without RT but you want the fastest for gen ras in esports. So unless you can afford a 4090 it sounds like you are talking about a 7900XTX. And even then if you are running esports at 1080p, the 7900XTX has the same performance as the 4090.

You are making the best argument for buying the 7900XTX for all gaming scenarios.

Or maybe even more performance than a 4090 at 1080p! Due to AMD's superior performance when CPU bound. The 7900XTX sounds like the GPU to be for esports!

theoutoOr maybe even more performance than a 4090 at 1080p! Due to AMD's superior performance when CPU bound. The 7900XTX sounds like the GPU to be for esports!

Maybe, maybe not (it's definitely not)

Vayra86Companies also won't even exist if it weren't for our greed. It is getting nearly philosophical here, but really... we're our own architects of trouble. The overwhelming majority of gaming and GPU development for gaming is pure luxury that we keep spending more money on.

There are non-profit companies, in the first place.

And these companies (AMD, intel, Nvidia) are obliged to follow some social goals, as well, especially when they develop technologies which serve for the normal functioning of the society.
That's the idea which the top managers can't get because it's out of their understanding of the world, if you want, as a whole.
It's not sustainable to ask for ever increasing profit when participating in critical for the society functions.

Vayra86Its an illusion that we can always get more for less.

Yeah, how would you compare a GeForce 4 Ti in 2002 for 320$ against an RX 6700 XT in 2024 for same money?
Don't you get more for less?

DavenAnd did that 3valatzy guy really call enabling RT ‘settings’ which makes AMD dangerously slower?

What's your idea? It is a setting.

3valatzyThere are non-profit companies, in the first place.

And these companies (AMD, intel, Nvidia) are obliged to follow some social goals, as well, especially when they develop technologies which serve for the normal functioning of the society.
That's the idea which the top managers can't get because it's out of their understanding of the world, if you want, as a whole.
It's not sustainable to ask for ever increasing profit when participating in critical for the society functions.

For a start, AMD, Intel and Nvidia are for-profit companies. Their main goal is to keep the investors happy. Talking about non-profit companies is irrelevant here.

Secondly, society functions without high-end graphics cards just fine, it has for millennia. They certainly have an effect on society, but they're not necessary by any means. Therefore, AMD, Intel and Nvidia are not obliged to lower their profit margins as long as customers are happy to pay up. Why would they? If you could sell a loaf of bread for 100 bucks, tell me you wouldn't. ;)

3valatzyYeah, how would you compare a GeForce 4 Ti in 2002 for 320$ against an RX 6700 XT in 2024 for same money?
Don't you get more for less?

You do, but there are limits to this, and we're bumping into them now.

Zeitgeist plays a huge role here. We've just escaped an era where the sky was the limit. Free money, life on debt was just fine, and then bubbles started bursting, pandemic happened, and crypto surged as an artifact of an era we were actually moving out of. Crypto was also built on the sky is the limit. Today, its not quite the lucrative business it was supposed to become - it lives on the sidelines of the economy, if even that.

Chips have followed a similar trajectory. For 30 years or more, there was low hanging fruit. That's gone now. Graphics, similarly, have advanced at a similar pace. Low hanging fruit is gone. A lot of the recent developments are really not developments, but disruptions to set a new status quo. RT is an example of that in gaming. 'Let's make a new bar to place/compare cards on, so it looks like we're still giving more'. Meanwhile, raster perf, the basis under all performance, is no longer advancing as fast as it used to and the price per FPS is getting stagnant gen to gen.

Even the planet follows a trajectory like that: humanity has clearly peaked, and the jury is still convening whether we are in decline or just slowly keep climbing as a species. But realistically all signs are red: climate, resources, population... we've exploded and we're fat, bloated, and fill societies with frivolities and wasteful practices. Are we happier though? I don't think so. More people than ever in therapy of some kind or another. Healthcare expenses explode like our bellies do. Wealth makes lazy. Lazy makes unhealthy. We're getting stagnant gen to gen, but fatter. Top seller and recent hype of 2024? A miracle medicine that promises weight loss. Go figure.

So do you really keep getting more for less, or is this just a matter of perception? What IS more?

nguyenActually Nvidia is miles faster in CoD when using competitive settings which most people would use when playing competitive games anyways


Not to mention Nvidia users also have Reflex advantage.

Not even close to being true, not in my experience and most other peoples judging by other reviews and just general user comments. If we're gonna pick cherries at least pick a few and not one. As the X-Files used to say, the truth is out there.

And I am in no way saying that a 7900XTX is faster than a 4090, of course it's not. I was just illustrating a point, picking a card on a certain game or criteria is pointless. You picture illustrates the point, who would buy a 7900XTX based on that quite obvious outlier but then we could also go the other way with this.



Using this cherry picked image most people would look and say the 7900XTX is a better RT card than a 4090 in one of the most popular recent games at the resolutions most people play at. It's not, it's just a fantasy to say that on one game based on one image on one persons opinion. See how we can all cherry pick.

I tend to look at all reviews and also user comments/experience. Maybe other people should do the same.

Beginner Micro DeviceRegardless of how funny it sounds it makes sense. Eliminating latency on all sides is a must for you to only have yourself as a limiting factor. So, yeah, despite it being kinda impossible to notice, 6600 XT provides you worse kill ratios in CS2 compared to 7900 XTX. Just because your input lag is a tad lower on the latter.

Unless we're talking 700 VS 600 FPS difference. No eSports connoiseur in the world can tell the difference. This is purely the "skill issue" territory.

Its complete nonsense. The overwhelming majority of the supposed advantages in latency in CS is placebo. Just because you can measure it, doesn't mean it factually improves your performance.

The human factor determines your performance. Irrespective of equipment. Equipment can only nudge that performance slightly higher. The amount of gamers that are pro enough to even get that nudge and prove it helps them is certainly not equal to the amount of supposed pro's that think they get it.

Rigorous training and building muscle memory is where its at. This means a lot more than playing a lot of CS. It means actually doing IRL sports to improve your gaming, short sessions of gaming, and full control.

RGAFLNot even close to being true, not in my experience and most other peoples judging by other reviews and just general user comments. If we're gonna pick cherries at least pick a few and not one. As the X-Files used to say, the truth is out there.

And I am in no way saying that a 7900XTX is faster than a 4090, of course it's not. I was just illustrating a point, picking a card on a certain game or criteria is pointless. You picture illustrates the point, who would buy a 7900XTX based on that quite obvious outlier but then we could also go the other way with this.

Using this cherry picked image most people would look and say the 7900XTX is a better RT card than a 4090 in one of the most popular recent games at the resolutions most people play at. It's not, it's just a fantasy to say that on one game based on one image on one persons opinion. See how we can all cherry pick.

I tend to look at all reviews and also user comments/experience. Maybe other people should do the same.

LOL I picked Warzone because it IS the outlier that favor AMD, everyone who is into esport knows that Nvidia is always the better option.

Warzone is not even in the top 10 most play game on Steam, I generally don't give a rat ass about it, until someone point out that AMD is better in Warzone that is.

nguyenMaybe, maybe not (it's definitely not)

Are we sure that at least the Fortnite and Wz tests are not being scuffed in some way? Because maybe I am tripping balls or thinking of another video, but I recall HUB saying somewhere that the performance was borked, but what I do know is that, for warzone at least, those were definitely not the numbers that they should be getting, even more so if 1080p, 1440p and 4K all perform within error of eachother. Same goes for fortnite.

But I am also running on coffee and the worst sleep I've had in my entire life, so perhaps I am just delirious.
Edit: Let's see what our cherry harvest has to offer (peep the i9 results, that one is more likely to be CPU limited)


this video might be old, but useful nevertheless. (Not the video the images above were taken from)

Good for you guys. This very Sapphire RX 7900 XT Pulse, costs here a grand and even more.

Vayra86Its complete nonsense. The overwhelming majority of the supposed advantages in latency in CS is placebo. Just because you can measure it, doesn't mean it factually improves your performance.

The human factor determines your performance. Irrespective of equipment. Equipment can only nudge that performance slightly higher. The amount of gamers that are pro enough to even get that nudge and prove it helps them is certainly not equal to the amount of supposed pro's that think they get it.

Rigorous training and building muscle memory is where its at. This means a lot more than playing a lot of CS. It means actually doing IRL sports to improve your gaming, short sessions of gaming, and full control.

There was a video of LTT, where "Shroud" pro gamer played with 60Hz monitor, and proven the player performance is subjective, and really is rather a human factor, than true constrain. This is a marketing BS. Surely, there's more smotheness for 120Hz, compared for 60Hz, but I doubt it really that much significant after that.

Also, some say this isn't a "realistic" test. But recently Gamers Nexus made a latency test with LDAT, and as aresult, the 7900XT had the total latency even lower, than 4090 and other nVidia counterparts. So... it's up to each individual, whether one decides, if they matter more the "theoretical" latency, or the final, general one.

nguyenLOL I picked Warzone because it IS the outlier that favor AMD, everyone who is into esport knows that Nvidia is always the better option.

Warzone is not even in the top 10 most play game on Steam, I generally don't give a rat ass about it, until someone point out that AMD is better in Warzone that is.

And i'm not disputing that, they probably are. But for the price difference they bloody well should be.

I own both by the way, a 4080 and 7900XTX. Certain games suit one over the other. I'm not a competitive games player but in my experience my 7900XTX is faster than my 4080 in Warzone. The general consensus is that it's also faster than a 4090. Do I listen to one guy or the thousands upon thousands of other reviews or experiences that generally say the 7900XTX is faster.

As demonstrated in my post above, in Spider-Man the 7900XTX in the most popular resolutions matches or beat a 4090 in RT. So it must be the same in RT in everything. Nope, not even close in the majority of RT/PT titles. I can accept that. To me it's not a pissing contest. It's a certain card does a better job in a certain game that i'm playing at the time so i'll use the relevant card.

At the present moment in time to me a 7900XTX is a more rounded card. In the future the 4080 may become that when more games come out that suit it's characteristics. But by then new cards will be out anyway and the world spins on with people picking a side that does not give a monkey's chuff about them. I have the same attitude to them as they to me. This is a graphics card, not a loved one.

nguyenLOL I picked Warzone because it IS the outlier that favor AMD, everyone who is into esport knows that Nvidia is always the better option.

Warzone is not even in the top 10 most play game on Steam, I generally don't give a rat ass about it, until someone point out that AMD is better in Warzone that is.

I don't think you know what a outlier is. The outlier is not the game as other reviews/comments show the 7900XTX is faster generally speaking than a 4090 but the benchmark/image you used. It is way off what most people get.

Guys, come back to the real world, please! This card is 10% faster in this game, that card is 5% faster in that game... Who gives a F, seriously? :D Whether you have a 7900 XT or a 4080, I bet you're equally happy. :)

RGAFLAnd i'm not disputing that, they probably are. But for the price difference they bloody well should be.

I own both by the way, a 4080 and 7900XTX. Certain games suit one over the other. I'm not a competitive games player but in my experience my 7900XTX is faster than my 4080 in Warzone. The general consensus is that it's also faster than a 4090. Do I listen to one guy or the thousands upon thousands of other reviews or experiences that generally say the 7900XTX is faster.

As demonstrated in my post above, in Spider-Man the 7900XTX in the most popular resolutions matches or beat a 4090 in RT. So it must be the same in RT in everything. Nope, not even close in the majority of RT/PT titles. I can accept that. To me it's not a pissing contest. It's a certain card does a better job in a certain game that i'm playing at the time so i'll use the relevant card.

At the present moment in time to me a 7900XTX is a more rounded card. In the future the 4080 may become that when more games come out that suit it's characteristics. But by then new cards will be out anyway and the world spins on with people picking a side that does not give a monkey's chuff about them. I have the same attitude to them as they to me. This is a graphics card, not a loved one.


I don't think you know what a outlier is. The outlier is not the game as other reviews/comments show the 7900XTX is faster generally speaking than a 4090 but the benchmark/image you used. It is way off what most people get.

Well we can take a popularity contest and according to Steam Hardware Survey, 4090 outsold 7900XTX 3 to 1 and 4080 out sold 7900XTX 2 to 1.

So yeah, maybe more people prefer GPUs that can do more than rasterizarion after all.

nguyenWell we can take a popularity contest and according to Steam Hardware Survey, 4090 outsold 7900XTX 3 to 1 and 4080 out sold 7900XTX 2 to 1.

So yeah, maybe more people prefer GPUs that can do more than rasterizarion after all.

And where in my comments have I disputed sales figures. I know Nvidia have sold more. Good on them. That's what their there to do, sell things.

I have disputed your use of a cherry pick though and the use of the word outlier. But you seem to have run out of room so go to sales. Like i've said before, I don't care for either, I own both. Swings and roundabouts on either side. But I do call out cherry pickers.

AusWolfGuys, come back to the real world, please! This card is 10% faster in this game, that card is 5% faster in that game... Who gives a F, seriously? :D Whether you have a 7900 XT or a 4080, I bet you're equally happy. :)

You don't get it, AusWolf, we MUST discuss and fight about products we will realistically never even breathe on, it is a NECESSITY.